History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s5.5

v1.c6.s5.5

The Gautama-dharmasūtra is written entirely in prose and it contains no verses either quoted or composed by the author himself, as is the case with the other *dharmasūtras*. Here and there occur sūtras that look like portions of Anuṣṭubh verses e. g. 23. 27⁶¹. The language of Gautama agrees far more closely with the standard set up by Pāṇini than the *dharmasūtras* of Baudhāyana and Āpastamba. It is not very easy to account for this difference. It is obvious that commentators and generations of students that were brought up in the tradition of the Pāṇinean grammar tampered with the text and improved it in accordance with their notions of correct Sanskrit. But why this process should not have been carried out to the same extent in the case of Āpastamba it is difficult to say. A conjecture may be hazarded that the Āp. Dh. S. being a well-knit component of the Āp. *Kalpa* and being studied as such was less liable to being tampered with than the Gautama Dh. S., which probably did not in its origin belong to any particular *kalpa*. The same commentator, Haradatta, explained both Gautama and Āpastamba. Haradatta, who as will be seen later on, was a great grammarian, shows in several places that the current reading was ungrammatical from the Pāṇinean stand-point and that he preferred readings that were in consonance with Pāṇini's rules⁶². There are still a few un-Pāṇinean words, e. g. in 1. 14 ('dvāviṁśateḥ' for dvāviṁśāt') and 9. 52 (kulaṁkula). The Tantravārtika (p. 99) appears to discuss the various readings in Gautama (I. 45⁶³). A few sūtras quoted from Gautama in the Mitākṣarā (e. g. the sūtra ‘utpatyaiva arthsvāmitvam labhante), the Smṛticandrikā (ʻdvyaṁśaṁ vā pūrvajaḥ syāt) and other works are not found in the extant text. This fact along with the fact of an interpolation of one chapter makes it clear that the present text of Gautama is of somewhat doubtful authority.